Opinion

From the critics

Community Activity

Comment

Featuring: predictably strong CGI (moments like good computer game), some atmospheric evocation of the taste of legend, and some abysmal plotting at the pace of a bad computer game. A little of the crisp cut-back visual narrative style that we would expect from director Ritchie, but a waste of Jude Law.

Arthurian purists will find this film a departure from traditional fare, if not a complete bastardisation of the legend. It is closer to a Lord of the Rings epic, combined with the gangster swagger of director Guy Ritchie's signature style. Despite the sweeping CGI and SFX, it felt like something was missing from the script. Charlie Hunnam fans will enjoy the extra features on this DVD, others may be disappointed with the rest. Not terrible, but not brilliant either.

Legend of the Sword tried to combine Ritchie's style of having the London underworld crime scene blended with the King Arthur myth. The results almost reach their mark but don't quite make it. The two concepts don't combine well. The plot elements showing how the Camelot underworld works would've been a great movie if it wasn't taking place Camelot. In fact, we've already seen that movie. We've seen it in Snatch, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, and Rock n Rolla. Likewise, the story showing the fall of Uther, the rise of Vortigern and the dispersing of the Knights of the Round would have also been interesting, if they weren't forced around the London underworld styled criminal plot. There was also a strong vibe that this movie was trying to build a franchise. The goal of the villain, other than ruling, was never explained. Nor was it explained why he would turn evil in the first place. They also left out many of the characters people normally associate with the King Arthur myth, like Guinevere, Lancelot and Merlyn. I don't want to call this movie terrible. If you're a fantasy buff, it's something to watch. If you enjoy Guy Ritche heist/grifting movies, you'll find this one lacking.

What a complete disappointment! This is a COMPLETE departure from any version of the story you've heard before. We feel as though we were cheated that the filmmaker even titled it King Arthur; as though the diamond we expected turned out to be a cheap piece of plastic from a gumball machine. We're not even going to finish it. SHAME on the filmmaker for the title he gave it.

The film is a near miss. Good production values; poor direction. The pulling of the sword from the stone was anti-climatic. The character development of the Jude Law's character is non-existent with never an understanding why he would go to such lengths for power. I was left shaking my head at this one. Just barely watchable.

Reimagined classic epic on the rise of King Arthur with twists in magician and demon, Arthur's destiny, multi ethnic knights and the legend of Excalibur. Enjoyed the special effects, stunning set designs and story twists. However, Jude Law's wanting character was unconvincing as the prolicide/fratricide/uxoricide and nearly succeeded as a nepoticide devil king. Last, a must see for the CGI ... and for the snake sequence towards the end. With a serpent like that, who needs a dragon! Watch the 4 minutes "Video" BUT SPOILER if you have not seen the film.

Here's the thing about Guy Ritchie movies: They're over the top. All of them are. His signature pacing is all over this. If you're a fan of the classic tales of The Round Table and Merlin, you'll probably be disappointed. That aside, this movie is a blast and overall it's a fun watch.

I am torn on this movie. On one hand, it is a pretty good sword and sorcery adventure flick; on the other, it is a complete bastardization of the Arthurian Legends. I'd have preferred that Guy Ritchie had given it the title "Fred And His Magic Sword" and removed all references to Arthur, Merlin, et al. because it is fun and creative. If you are interested in an accurate depiction of Camelot (i.e. Mallory's Le Morte D'Arthur or Tennyson's Idylls Of The King) then get the 1980 movie Excalibur by John Boorman.